Author
Topic: Canon lens setup for weddings (Read 5395 times)

My current lens setup for weddings is a 24-105, 50, and a 70-200 on a 1.3x body and 1.6x as a backup/2nd body. I'm considering swapping the 24-105 for a 16-35 ii. Anybody use a 16-35, 50, and 70-200 setup and are happy with it?

I love my 24-105, and it produces some very nice images, but I have found that it is leaving me wanting more on the wide end (especially with a 1.3x body) and in low light. Also, while my 70-200 produces very nice, sharp portraits with great bokeh and my 50mm works well indoors with low light and is good for subject isolation, I'm just not getting many images with the "wow" factor out of the 24-105. And with every bride's mother running around with a rebel and a kit lens, I'm definitely having to produce lots of those "wow" images to make clients happy. Looking back, most of the pictures made with the 24-105 are at the wide or long end too.

So while I know the 16-35 will produce those amazing wide-angle shots, will it be worth it to lose those focal lengths between 35 and 50 as well as 50 and 70?

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I agree with you completely. I have a pretty similar setup. I currently have the 16-35 ii and while good I don't know that it will deliver the wow factor you're after. To me primes are the most sure way but they also require more work. It's definitely not point and shoot. I am thinking about getting a 24-70 ii. My 70-200 ii gets amazing shots and so far it's one of the few zoom I believe that is able to get shots like what your looking for. So although I haven't tried it appears the 24-70 has matched it. My 24-105 will probably be going up for sale. Even though I like it, it so far is only working well for my video use. The only thing you will be losing for your photography is 35mm reach which you have covered especially when using both cameras. So while I wouldn't get rid of my 16-35 I do wish I had invested into the 24-70 prior. But it will happen eventually.

I had the 24-105 - great lens but I started to find it a bit 'boring' (did I just say that?!). It's 'only' f/4 and, like you, I felt I wanted something a bit wider. I couldn't afford the 16-35mm so went for the 17-40 instead. OK it's still 'only' f/4 but inside venues it's fantastic! I get WA shots of interiors that I would have never achieved with the 24-105mm.

However, If I had the cash I'd swap to all primes: 24mmL, 35mmL, 50mmL, 85mmL and 135mmL.

I know Neuro is a big fan of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a 24-70mm equivalent on a 1.6x crop.

If I were a professional wedding shooter, I would opt for a full frame with a 24-70mm f/2.8 II as my core pairing. And then I would expand the long end with one of the 70-200mm f/2.8s. For spice, I would add one or two of of the L primes between 35mm and 135mm.

I know Neuro is a big fan of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a 24-70mm equivalent on a 1.6x crop.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

I know Neuro is a big fan of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a 24-70mm equivalent on a 1.6x crop.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

True, maybe not "equivalent" focal length. I think it is 27-88mm on a 1.6x. But considering aperture, I believe the 17-55mm f/2.8 is the closest substitute for the 24-70mm f/2.8 Ls.

I agree that a skilled shooter can get good results at the wide end. It's all about the composition (and keeping the bride away from those distorted corners ;-). I particular like when the wide shots look flat and have a painterly feel.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 12:07:17 AM by dirtcastle »

Logged

MarkIII

It really depends on what range you like to shoot in. If you want to be up in someone's business, sure a 16-35 will be great. If you like to give people their space while still being close, then a 24-70 would be perfect. Prior to me switching to full frame I shot a 28-70mm on a crop sensor 97% of the time. It worked perfect in weddings for me. Yes, I lacked in the wide end of things, but I was able to adapt. I also used my boss' 16-35 on my crop sensor, and I felt way to limited and constrained. (one reason I won't personally by a prime shooter)

I do bring out my 16-35 at receptions to get creative dance pictures, but during a ceremony not really. I'd rather have the flexibility of a slight zoom. The great part is the 24-70 starts at the mid point of the 16-35 so with that overlap you can get some good womp in your pictures.

My boss has his 16-35v1 glued to his camera almost always, however, after he used my 24-70 II during a ceremony he only hopes I won't use it so he can steal It from me. He has always stated how he loves his 16-35, but he now wishes he had the money to contemplate getting a 24-70 II.

Personally I'd go with the 24 - 70 II. I have no doubt you would be happy with it, and if you ever upgrade to a ff body it would only make you that much happier with your decision.

I'm not a pro nor a wedding photographer. I have shot one wedding for a friend and can say that I'd only use a few zooms if I ever did another. At the time I only had a 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. I brought along a 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L II, but found that fooling with switching lenses was rough and lent itself to missing shots. I used the 85mm f/1.2L II quite a bit at the reception when I had more room to move around and the critical shots had already been taken.

Now that I have a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, I'd definitely take it along with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. I'd have each of those mounted to a full frame camera.

Now...if you are a second or third shooter, perhaps then you could use something as specialized as the 85mm, 50 or 35mm. I attended a wedding recently in Brazil where there were three shooters: one with a 24-70mm, one with 70-200 and one with the 85L. The one with the 85mm had more artistic license and seemed to be more free to explore.

I know Neuro is a big fan of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a 24-70mm equivalent on a 1.6x crop.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

True, maybe not "equivalent" focal length. I think it is 27-88mm on a 1.6x. But considering aperture, I believe the 17-55mm f/2.8 is the closest substitute for the 24-70mm f/2.8

There is no 24-70mm (on FF) equivalent for crops- it would have to be an f/1.8 zoom for the same DoF with equivalent FoV, and be f/1.2 to match the light capturing capabilities of the bigger sensor with larger pixels (two different factors, both contributing independently).Once again, I'd recommend the 16-28 Tokina. Very sharp, and I keep recommending it to people who might be less worried than me about the front element.

I know Neuro is a big fan of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a 24-70mm equivalent on a 1.6x crop.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

True, maybe not "equivalent" focal length. I think it is 27-88mm on a 1.6x. But considering aperture, I believe the 17-55mm f/2.8 is the closest substitute for the 24-70mm f/2.8

There is no 24-70mm (on FF) equivalent for crops- it would have to be an f/1.8 zoom for the same DoF with equivalent FoV, and be f/1.2 to match the light capturing capabilities of the bigger sensor with larger pixels (two different factors, both contributing independently).Once again, I'd recommend the 16-28 Tokina. Very sharp, and I keep recommending it to people who might be less worried than me about the front element.

So what lens is closer to a 24-70mm f/2.8 on a 1.6x crop, if not the 17-55mm f/2.8?

I know Neuro is a big fan of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a 24-70mm equivalent on a 1.6x crop.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

True, maybe not "equivalent" focal length. I think it is 27-88mm on a 1.6x. But considering aperture, I believe the 17-55mm f/2.8 is the closest substitute for the 24-70mm f/2.8

There is no 24-70mm (on FF) equivalent for crops- it would have to be an f/1.8 zoom for the same DoF with equivalent FoV, and be f/1.2 to match the light capturing capabilities of the bigger sensor with larger pixels (two different factors, both contributing independently).Once again, I'd recommend the 16-28 Tokina. Very sharp, and I keep recommending it to people who might be less worried than me about the front element.

So what lens is closer to a 24-70mm f/2.8 on a 1.6x crop, if not the 17-55mm f/2.8?

No, you're right- the 17-55 is the closest- since it's the fastest zoom available. It's not not quite the same as a 24-70 on a FF though. Although, for stationary subjects the 2-stop IS compensates for the smaller, denser sensor.